"Stagnated game industry"
by Jonathon Brandemihl · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 07/14/2004 (3:17 pm) · 26 replies
I think not...
Lets see now... Back in the 80's, Apple ][ programmers had less to work with, less of an industry (if at all for PC.) They programmed for themselves, not others. I think back to some of those games, and I still have a vivid remembrance of joy when playing such titles as 'Oddessy,' 'Oregon Trail,' 'Zork.'
I think 2 major factors have not so much 'stagnated' the gaming industry as 'conformed' it:
a) Publish-ability. Who here would not like to make a living off of devel games? When large numbers of people get involved, as well as a publisher's money, isn't it safer to put app/style in a genre that has proven succesful in the industry? ID Software followers have laid a trail of Doom/Quake clone games that narrows a gamers/delelopers, and eventually industies scope.
b) Coding. Now, granted I don't know SQUAT about C++, and just bought my first book today. But, I can see how groups of folks that lean to code a certain way, often end up programming a certain way.
Think about it... When you buy a game how does it go?
1. Dev/publisher splash
2. Title
3. Intro
4. Menu
5. Game
I don't mean just sequence, but don't we all work a off a bit of every thing we have been exposed to? An orignal game is one where we are not re-experiencing what we or others already have.
Jonathon.
Lets see now... Back in the 80's, Apple ][ programmers had less to work with, less of an industry (if at all for PC.) They programmed for themselves, not others. I think back to some of those games, and I still have a vivid remembrance of joy when playing such titles as 'Oddessy,' 'Oregon Trail,' 'Zork.'
I think 2 major factors have not so much 'stagnated' the gaming industry as 'conformed' it:
a) Publish-ability. Who here would not like to make a living off of devel games? When large numbers of people get involved, as well as a publisher's money, isn't it safer to put app/style in a genre that has proven succesful in the industry? ID Software followers have laid a trail of Doom/Quake clone games that narrows a gamers/delelopers, and eventually industies scope.
b) Coding. Now, granted I don't know SQUAT about C++, and just bought my first book today. But, I can see how groups of folks that lean to code a certain way, often end up programming a certain way.
Think about it... When you buy a game how does it go?
1. Dev/publisher splash
2. Title
3. Intro
4. Menu
5. Game
I don't mean just sequence, but don't we all work a off a bit of every thing we have been exposed to? An orignal game is one where we are not re-experiencing what we or others already have.
Jonathon.
About the author
#2
and thats just the tip of the iceberg. I've also noticed ahuge problem with scheduling and selling a team short and a product too aggrsssively as being further along than it really is just to cut a publishing deal. this inevitably ends up with a jaded team, working excessively long hours, and older more experienced developers being pushed out of the industry to look after their personal lives, wives, children and other commitments that developers often dont have time for.
This often leads to teams of largely inexerienced developers working to what ammounts to tough deadlines and weeks of crunch that leaves many disillusioned.
There really isn't a black or white to it, and no individual party can take all the blame. It's just a young and generally inexperienced industry thats built more on enthusiasm and tallent that often folds under pressure. Very few developers can hold a stable job for more than 2 years in one place. So there really isn't much security either unless your really lucky.
Thats been my general experience of working full time for 3 developers in the last 6 years. Each one being completely different, but usually having a few common problems that provide the largest stumbling blocks.
Out of those 3, one still makes the same tried and tested games, without pushing themselves too hard, another was huge for several years before it was swallowed up my a BIG international publisher and after finishing remaining titles promptly disappeared, and the third was screwed by a publisher and closed down several weeks later.
Only one of those offered any kind of stability, and that was the one that only took safe projects that never pushed the development team at all, took few risks and therefor could keep itself and its employees in business indefinately. Unfortunately it wasn't a fun place to work.
07/14/2004 (5:19 pm)
Having worked on commercial games for several years I havent really foudn the developers at fault so much as what criteria a game must cover in order to be published. For one thing there is a time limit, target hardware, then the developer loses control of their product to a publisher that usually consists of too many bosses, each with different priorities. The game has to be simplified for the lowest common denominator, (controls and gameplay)so that a casual gamer can pick it up and master it in a few minutes.and thats just the tip of the iceberg. I've also noticed ahuge problem with scheduling and selling a team short and a product too aggrsssively as being further along than it really is just to cut a publishing deal. this inevitably ends up with a jaded team, working excessively long hours, and older more experienced developers being pushed out of the industry to look after their personal lives, wives, children and other commitments that developers often dont have time for.
This often leads to teams of largely inexerienced developers working to what ammounts to tough deadlines and weeks of crunch that leaves many disillusioned.
There really isn't a black or white to it, and no individual party can take all the blame. It's just a young and generally inexperienced industry thats built more on enthusiasm and tallent that often folds under pressure. Very few developers can hold a stable job for more than 2 years in one place. So there really isn't much security either unless your really lucky.
Thats been my general experience of working full time for 3 developers in the last 6 years. Each one being completely different, but usually having a few common problems that provide the largest stumbling blocks.
Out of those 3, one still makes the same tried and tested games, without pushing themselves too hard, another was huge for several years before it was swallowed up my a BIG international publisher and after finishing remaining titles promptly disappeared, and the third was screwed by a publisher and closed down several weeks later.
Only one of those offered any kind of stability, and that was the one that only took safe projects that never pushed the development team at all, took few risks and therefor could keep itself and its employees in business indefinately. Unfortunately it wasn't a fun place to work.
#3
So in order to get a major title published, it has to be a 'best-of-breed' within a narrowly defined category.
b) I don't really understand your point. I could say we do have a little bit of a problem with a new generation of game developers (designers, programmers, artists) who have had their horizons defined by games they've played in the past. To a point its a good thing - they now have a common vocabulary, a shorthand that can be used by referring to past games. "Oh, it's got a fighting system like Devil May Cry... the camera is like Tomb Raider's, though." But its a liability in that they have trouble thinking outside the box, and conceiving of truly innovative concepts rather than simply improving on their favorite games.
There is a third problem with innovation - the audience doesn't like it. Oh, the hardcore folks who are sick of the same-ol', same-ol' will cry out for new experiences. But the average gamer wants "the same but different." It's easy to sell them something that is LIKE a favorite game but with new features and challenges. It's harder to not only explain to them something totally new, but also to convince them that it's something they really want to play. People tend to stick with what they know.
07/15/2004 (8:16 am)
A) That's the #1 reason why the industry is stagnating, IMO. There's too much money involved in major commercial releases, and we've had an economic downturn the last 4 years. As a result, the major players have all been playing it very very safe... nobody's willing to put $3-5 million on something that appears in any way risky.So in order to get a major title published, it has to be a 'best-of-breed' within a narrowly defined category.
b) I don't really understand your point. I could say we do have a little bit of a problem with a new generation of game developers (designers, programmers, artists) who have had their horizons defined by games they've played in the past. To a point its a good thing - they now have a common vocabulary, a shorthand that can be used by referring to past games. "Oh, it's got a fighting system like Devil May Cry... the camera is like Tomb Raider's, though." But its a liability in that they have trouble thinking outside the box, and conceiving of truly innovative concepts rather than simply improving on their favorite games.
There is a third problem with innovation - the audience doesn't like it. Oh, the hardcore folks who are sick of the same-ol', same-ol' will cry out for new experiences. But the average gamer wants "the same but different." It's easy to sell them something that is LIKE a favorite game but with new features and challenges. It's harder to not only explain to them something totally new, but also to convince them that it's something they really want to play. People tend to stick with what they know.
#4
The reason why the industry has begun shrinking is because people (like me) are expecting more and more. But if they just stop trying to make the best graphics and focus a little more on gameplay...I think a lot more could be achieved. The race towards the best models and effects will always continue, yet blizzard makes games that aren't top notch graphics and somehow comes out making blockbuster games one by one. How does blizzard do it? Gameplay.
They focus on what "should" be the most important aspect of a game and might I add they do it well. I think that if they stopped trying to go graphics crazy, they could still make a very unique game in the process. I guess I just wish it was all different, but that will most likely never happen. It will go on like this until someone who wants to make something new steps up and does so.
07/15/2004 (6:04 pm)
I enjoy innovation, and I can understand that the general public (being idiots, no offense) would be more content with the same thing over and over. I think Andrian makes good points from an actual perspective. Something I haven't truly ever seen because I have never been there.The reason why the industry has begun shrinking is because people (like me) are expecting more and more. But if they just stop trying to make the best graphics and focus a little more on gameplay...I think a lot more could be achieved. The race towards the best models and effects will always continue, yet blizzard makes games that aren't top notch graphics and somehow comes out making blockbuster games one by one. How does blizzard do it? Gameplay.
They focus on what "should" be the most important aspect of a game and might I add they do it well. I think that if they stopped trying to go graphics crazy, they could still make a very unique game in the process. I guess I just wish it was all different, but that will most likely never happen. It will go on like this until someone who wants to make something new steps up and does so.
#5
Seeing as my income comes from a 'yes sir,' 'hands in grease, then on keyboards' job, my goals are to make something that is niche' and rememberable.
If I don't make any money, that is fine, I am in it just to be doing it.
IMO, FarCry had pretty much taken FPG to the limit. Textures with antistropic-specular lighting. HAVOC physics, and large FOV. I have no dought Doom III will take the cake, however, it puts gaming focus back into maze-rat type corridor navigating.
How can any 'garagegame' devel compete w/ such a development roster/budget? We can't...
Sure, D3 will sell bigtime, but it did start as an old school apogee niche' game..
Anyone seen FlatSpace? www.lostinflatspace.com .Nice, new niche' game closely bound to Escape Velocity Nova, but just different enough to draw the player into it's interesting mechanics.
Jonathon
07/16/2004 (7:28 am)
You all make valid points that are refreshing to my my own perspective.Seeing as my income comes from a 'yes sir,' 'hands in grease, then on keyboards' job, my goals are to make something that is niche' and rememberable.
If I don't make any money, that is fine, I am in it just to be doing it.
IMO, FarCry had pretty much taken FPG to the limit. Textures with antistropic-specular lighting. HAVOC physics, and large FOV. I have no dought Doom III will take the cake, however, it puts gaming focus back into maze-rat type corridor navigating.
How can any 'garagegame' devel compete w/ such a development roster/budget? We can't...
Sure, D3 will sell bigtime, but it did start as an old school apogee niche' game..
Anyone seen FlatSpace? www.lostinflatspace.com .Nice, new niche' game closely bound to Escape Velocity Nova, but just different enough to draw the player into it's interesting mechanics.
Jonathon
#6
The trick is not trying to get into a wrestling match with an 800 pound gorilla. We can afford to go after new or ignored niches, or to experiment with new concepts, which the big publishers can't afford to touch.
07/16/2004 (8:19 am)
Quote:How can any 'garagegame' devel compete w/ such a development roster/budget? We can't...I think you've answered your own question.
The trick is not trying to get into a wrestling match with an 800 pound gorilla. We can afford to go after new or ignored niches, or to experiment with new concepts, which the big publishers can't afford to touch.
#7
07/16/2004 (8:44 am)
And I think that playing with an all new concept is a lot more fun than innovating within a narrowly constrained genre...
#8
No matter how long you go back, you can still appreciate old 2D games, but old 3D games look like crap. If 2D is done correctly, you can almost make it a "timeless" piece. 3D will get old once they come out with new technologies that make your eyes pop out.
07/16/2004 (9:13 am)
Quote:And I think that playing with an all new concept is a lot more fun than innovating within a narrowly constrained genre...Yes, it is a lot more fun making something that is completely different than the norm. That is why independent developers would often focust almost entirely on gameplay because they don't have the time or manpower to create the best graphics around. 2D games a lot easier to make, and can be a lot more creative (and at times, more graphically beautiful) than 3D games. 2D also seems like it doesn't "date".
No matter how long you go back, you can still appreciate old 2D games, but old 3D games look like crap. If 2D is done correctly, you can almost make it a "timeless" piece. 3D will get old once they come out with new technologies that make your eyes pop out.
#9
I'm more then a bit of a nitche gamer, and working on developing games that fit for the most part in my nitche (good old shoot 'em ups with 2D basied gameplay...R-type, Einhander, Raiden etc..) Obviously it is a narrowly defined genre, but it does offer a lot of innovation as it forces you to get creative working with in the genre restrictions...else we wouldn't be seeing the likes of Treasures fantastic Ikaruga...or even combinations of shooters and other genres (shooter + raceing = Kingdom Grandprix for example)...It's not something I'm hopeing to get rich at or even earn a liveing from, but I know and love the genre, and want to make a contribution (especialy as, for the most part outside of Japan, the genre is greatly overlooked, even ignored)
@Josh - 2D is great...but some old 3D can still be quite visualy impressive...the images from the old Disney film Tron for example...while very simple by today's standards still hold a unqestionable allure. course those images wern't generated with the goal of produceing photo realisam of some form of physical reality...this fixated drive for more realisam (both graphicly and in terms of gameplay mechanics) is in large part what seems to be stagnateing the industry, IMHO...The low point for me was last year with the release of Tron 2.0...so much potential waisted on silly RPG and FPS design elements :(
07/16/2004 (11:00 am)
I agree with a lot of what is being said.I'm more then a bit of a nitche gamer, and working on developing games that fit for the most part in my nitche (good old shoot 'em ups with 2D basied gameplay...R-type, Einhander, Raiden etc..) Obviously it is a narrowly defined genre, but it does offer a lot of innovation as it forces you to get creative working with in the genre restrictions...else we wouldn't be seeing the likes of Treasures fantastic Ikaruga...or even combinations of shooters and other genres (shooter + raceing = Kingdom Grandprix for example)...It's not something I'm hopeing to get rich at or even earn a liveing from, but I know and love the genre, and want to make a contribution (especialy as, for the most part outside of Japan, the genre is greatly overlooked, even ignored)
@Josh - 2D is great...but some old 3D can still be quite visualy impressive...the images from the old Disney film Tron for example...while very simple by today's standards still hold a unqestionable allure. course those images wern't generated with the goal of produceing photo realisam of some form of physical reality...this fixated drive for more realisam (both graphicly and in terms of gameplay mechanics) is in large part what seems to be stagnateing the industry, IMHO...The low point for me was last year with the release of Tron 2.0...so much potential waisted on silly RPG and FPS design elements :(
#10
We've got a couple of revolutions occuring that are giving us some reasonably significant jumps (pixel & vertex shaders, namely) which will be hurdles for a while longer. But overall, I think the curve in *apparent* visual quality is flattening out.
07/16/2004 (11:24 am)
3D is starting to stabilize, too --- you take a look at a 2-year-old 3D game (like, say, Unreal Tournament 2003), and it doesn't look nearly as bad as, say, a 3D game from 1997 did in 1999. Counterstrike is still unbelievably popular, and it's based on 5-year-old technology as well. We've got a couple of revolutions occuring that are giving us some reasonably significant jumps (pixel & vertex shaders, namely) which will be hurdles for a while longer. But overall, I think the curve in *apparent* visual quality is flattening out.
#11
Totally.
07/16/2004 (11:25 am)
"I think the curve in *apparent* visual quality is flattening out"Totally.
#12
Don't get me wrong, gameplay has to be there or you can't keep a player interested beyond 5 minutes (that's about how long I lasted with the Pandora Tomorrow demo, btw).
But overall, I think a recipe for success is to follow the blueprint of games like System Shock 2 which really immersed the player in plot while remaining a true FPS.
For me, content is key.
-Michael
07/16/2004 (12:45 pm)
I think the game industry is stagnant because players are starving for content, theme and mood.Don't get me wrong, gameplay has to be there or you can't keep a player interested beyond 5 minutes (that's about how long I lasted with the Pandora Tomorrow demo, btw).
But overall, I think a recipe for success is to follow the blueprint of games like System Shock 2 which really immersed the player in plot while remaining a true FPS.
For me, content is key.
-Michael
#13
Part of what I find to be discerning is the usage of psycologists in the devel to add 'points' or scripts that attempt to keep a player interested in even the most mundane game by making the player retain that, "whats around the next corner" curiosity...
Art should not be created for any one or more viewers to divulge in any *one* of its interesting points. It should be an excellent expression of the artist, in which all elements please the viewers to the point of perceived 'connection' with what the artist is conveying.
-Jonathon
07/16/2004 (10:37 pm)
A big 'Yo-ho' on SysShock2... "Your mine now!"Part of what I find to be discerning is the usage of psycologists in the devel to add 'points' or scripts that attempt to keep a player interested in even the most mundane game by making the player retain that, "whats around the next corner" curiosity...
Art should not be created for any one or more viewers to divulge in any *one* of its interesting points. It should be an excellent expression of the artist, in which all elements please the viewers to the point of perceived 'connection' with what the artist is conveying.
-Jonathon
#14
You are completely correct. Graphics can only bring a game so far, because I would rather play a game with the best gameplay than a game with the best graphics and no gameplay.
You see, there is a delicate balance between gameplay and graphics that needs to be attained. Most games focus too much on one or the other. A game that correctly balances both of these pieces is truly a game worth playing. However, I think that developers are sort of "going about it the wrong way" by starting with a graphical idea and turning it into a game. They should focus more on gameplay first and let the graphics just flow.
07/17/2004 (7:58 pm)
Quote:...this fixated drive for more realisam (both graphicly and in terms of gameplay mechanics) is in large part what seems to be stagnateing the industry, IMHO...
You are completely correct. Graphics can only bring a game so far, because I would rather play a game with the best gameplay than a game with the best graphics and no gameplay.
You see, there is a delicate balance between gameplay and graphics that needs to be attained. Most games focus too much on one or the other. A game that correctly balances both of these pieces is truly a game worth playing. However, I think that developers are sort of "going about it the wrong way" by starting with a graphical idea and turning it into a game. They should focus more on gameplay first and let the graphics just flow.
#15
If the industry is stagnating, its because the hardware that contains it has reached the limits of its possibilities. Thats why you see the same ideas re-hashed over and over, but with better graphics.
07/17/2004 (9:04 pm)
"Software is like a gas, it expands to fill the space it is given." -- some bookIf the industry is stagnating, its because the hardware that contains it has reached the limits of its possibilities. Thats why you see the same ideas re-hashed over and over, but with better graphics.
#16
How could EVERY game be a genre-busting supergame?
Why would you want every game to be completely different from every other anyways? I don't want to have to spend an hour learning how to play each game because it's different from every other game.
Some games are just clones of other games. In fact, the retro craze is bringing back identical copies of old games.
But most games add something new that other games didn't have or blend features of several games in a way they've never been blended before. Each game adds a little bit to the world of gaming - I don't see any reason to require that every game be completely unique in every way.
Does every book written with completely different words than every other book? I think not - if that were the case, no one would be able to read.
Is every movie a completely new experience? No.
Does every tomato taste completely different? No.
Why should the video game industry in particular be called stagnated?
07/18/2004 (7:30 am)
I don't think the industry is stagnating.How could EVERY game be a genre-busting supergame?
Why would you want every game to be completely different from every other anyways? I don't want to have to spend an hour learning how to play each game because it's different from every other game.
Some games are just clones of other games. In fact, the retro craze is bringing back identical copies of old games.
But most games add something new that other games didn't have or blend features of several games in a way they've never been blended before. Each game adds a little bit to the world of gaming - I don't see any reason to require that every game be completely unique in every way.
Does every book written with completely different words than every other book? I think not - if that were the case, no one would be able to read.
Is every movie a completely new experience? No.
Does every tomato taste completely different? No.
Why should the video game industry in particular be called stagnated?
#17
If the industry is stagnating, it is because those purchasing the games are not rewarding innovation with their purchase of games that try to break the mold.
Look at the games you have purchased recently. Did you purchase Beyond Good and Evil? PikMin?
and then ask yourself if you own any of the Unreal games.
Games that try to break the mold by introducing new gameplay or 'unproven' IP are usually not rewarded with good sales.
Does it frustrate me? Yes. Are the publishers stupid? No. They are producing what the majority of people want.
Look at your own game library and your own game buying habits. Did you purchase Orbz ?(a game trying to break the mold) Are you one of those that is going to get Doom3 when it comes out? (a game not trying to push the limits of anything, as far as I am concerned)
Support those that are looking to innovate with your purchases, and convince others to do the same. If it was not economically viable to create rehashed products, then the industry as a whole would stop doing it.
07/18/2004 (7:51 am)
If people were buying new and inventive games, the big publishers would be making new and interesting games. If the industry is stagnating, it is because those purchasing the games are not rewarding innovation with their purchase of games that try to break the mold.
Look at the games you have purchased recently. Did you purchase Beyond Good and Evil? PikMin?
and then ask yourself if you own any of the Unreal games.
Games that try to break the mold by introducing new gameplay or 'unproven' IP are usually not rewarded with good sales.
Does it frustrate me? Yes. Are the publishers stupid? No. They are producing what the majority of people want.
Look at your own game library and your own game buying habits. Did you purchase Orbz ?(a game trying to break the mold) Are you one of those that is going to get Doom3 when it comes out? (a game not trying to push the limits of anything, as far as I am concerned)
Support those that are looking to innovate with your purchases, and convince others to do the same. If it was not economically viable to create rehashed products, then the industry as a whole would stop doing it.
#18
However, Joe, don't get me wrong, I completely understand your point. The industry does it because it is a very SAFE venture to make the same game over and over. I mean...how many Madden games have they made over the years? Yet somehow that game is still sells like crazy even though it is the same game over and over. Is it because the general public is "stupid"? I think so.
That is what is so frustrating about the industry. Even if someone makes a new innovating game, the other game franchises overpower the newer releases. It doesn't matter if the game is better than starcraft, starcraft still might sell more because more people are obsessed with it.
It really all comes down to human nature, and in this situation, human nature is working towards the publisher and against the developers.
BTW, I did buy Pikmin, that game rocked. =D
07/18/2004 (10:20 am)
Quote:Look at your own game library and your own game buying habits. Did you purchase Orbz ?(a game trying to break the mold)Never heard of it... Just got here so... :P
Quote:Are you one of those that is going to get Doom3 when it comes out? (a game not trying to push the limits of anything, as far as I am concerned)I will not buy doom 3 when it comes out. I don't like playing the same thing over and over, I have played enough FPS's to last me a lifetime.
However, Joe, don't get me wrong, I completely understand your point. The industry does it because it is a very SAFE venture to make the same game over and over. I mean...how many Madden games have they made over the years? Yet somehow that game is still sells like crazy even though it is the same game over and over. Is it because the general public is "stupid"? I think so.
That is what is so frustrating about the industry. Even if someone makes a new innovating game, the other game franchises overpower the newer releases. It doesn't matter if the game is better than starcraft, starcraft still might sell more because more people are obsessed with it.
It really all comes down to human nature, and in this situation, human nature is working towards the publisher and against the developers.
BTW, I did buy Pikmin, that game rocked. =D
#19
I disagree. Just because most people like a familiar experience, it does not make them stupid.
people watch football, baseball, basketball.. etc.. all the games are pretty much the same, but the slight differences between wach game make it enjoyable for people to watch on TV, again, and again, and again..
If you look at books and film, they pretty much all follow the same structure. In fact, if you read any Joseph Campbell, you will understand why this is the case.
My personal feelings on 'pushing' game design are more evolutionary than revolutionary. With ThinkTanks, we took a tried and true game type and theme, and tried to push the game design in subtle ways. Our big push on this one was to try to eliminate the HUD found in most shooters and rely instead on more subtle and 'natural' feedback mechanims. Instead of a health meter, we have smoke that billows from the tanks as an indicator or health.
We also have a game type called 'scrum'.. which is basically a variant on the Caprute the Flag game type. We changed the rules to fix some frustrations I have had with the normal CTF rule set that resulted in the dumb dumb strategy being one of the most effective winning strategies.
For the most part, we were successful in our attempts to try out new game design ideas without getting 'out there'.
I personally would like to see more people pushing the boundries of game design. I think it would be good for people to experiment with ways to do so with a clear understanding of what 'people' want, and work within those boundries instead of railing aginst it, I don't think human nature works for or against any particular party. We used the average individuals pre conceived nothions of what ThinkTanks might be in order to sell units AND experiement with game design. We have gotten a little bit of flack for not being innovative enough, and I just don't understand the sentiment.
The reality is that one has to sell games in order to be in the business of making games for a living. We choose to push in small areas, stick to things we know will be accepted, and put ourselves in a position to keep making good games the way we want to make them. I hold in high regard those who want to do their own thing.... I just want to be clear that it is my opinion that going too far outside the norm may be a recipe for disaster.
I suppose I should add that trying to compete on the same playing field with the big pubs is a sure recipe for disaster. Innovate, but be careful where and how you do it.
07/18/2004 (11:06 am)
Quote:Yet somehow that game is still sells like crazy even though it is the same game over and over. Is it because the general public is "stupid"? I think so.
I disagree. Just because most people like a familiar experience, it does not make them stupid.
people watch football, baseball, basketball.. etc.. all the games are pretty much the same, but the slight differences between wach game make it enjoyable for people to watch on TV, again, and again, and again..
If you look at books and film, they pretty much all follow the same structure. In fact, if you read any Joseph Campbell, you will understand why this is the case.
My personal feelings on 'pushing' game design are more evolutionary than revolutionary. With ThinkTanks, we took a tried and true game type and theme, and tried to push the game design in subtle ways. Our big push on this one was to try to eliminate the HUD found in most shooters and rely instead on more subtle and 'natural' feedback mechanims. Instead of a health meter, we have smoke that billows from the tanks as an indicator or health.
We also have a game type called 'scrum'.. which is basically a variant on the Caprute the Flag game type. We changed the rules to fix some frustrations I have had with the normal CTF rule set that resulted in the dumb dumb strategy being one of the most effective winning strategies.
For the most part, we were successful in our attempts to try out new game design ideas without getting 'out there'.
I personally would like to see more people pushing the boundries of game design. I think it would be good for people to experiment with ways to do so with a clear understanding of what 'people' want, and work within those boundries instead of railing aginst it, I don't think human nature works for or against any particular party. We used the average individuals pre conceived nothions of what ThinkTanks might be in order to sell units AND experiement with game design. We have gotten a little bit of flack for not being innovative enough, and I just don't understand the sentiment.
The reality is that one has to sell games in order to be in the business of making games for a living. We choose to push in small areas, stick to things we know will be accepted, and put ourselves in a position to keep making good games the way we want to make them. I hold in high regard those who want to do their own thing.... I just want to be clear that it is my opinion that going too far outside the norm may be a recipe for disaster.
I suppose I should add that trying to compete on the same playing field with the big pubs is a sure recipe for disaster. Innovate, but be careful where and how you do it.
#20
Not at all. There are many factors:
1) It's there. That's the best there is, even if it's rehashed, it's still better than yesterdays news, but not quite, and when it's a choice of trying something new or something that just enhances the last (which was good), then most stick with a deal they can expect to be happy with.
2) Opinion counts, sales count more. Why are games rehashed? Because the general public liked what they saw with the last, or it's been proven to be a big seller with the (x-gamer) crowd, so let's give them the same thing, but with different features. Milk it dry.
3) New? But they got SuperGame 2 out! I'll get SuperGame 2, I know how to play that...
4) New? I haven't heard of it, where did you hear about that game? I've never seen any commercials so it must not be too good.
5) I don't like NewGame X, it's not my style, it looks like (game_I_hate)... (From a RPG fanatic who don't know they're talking about a new, unique RPG)
Stupidity is usually not the case - misinformation, advertising, graphics quality, ratings, hype, genre-specifics, price, and past experiences, though, usually are. Relation is a key ingredient because people will always go with what they know or can relate with before they look out the window to experience something new. In fact, this is part of marketing strategy for almost any product.
Try getting people who don't care for Pac-Man to play Pac-Man Vs. and see how far you get. Most people, after they've played it, like it, but until then it's alien to them. How many 'aliens' do you let in your door?
So, what sells then? Hype and fancy things you can see and hear! Advertising. Word of mouth works too, but it's usually alot slower. Special content - CoolBand's music is in it, it comes with the classic (retro game), it has (M rating or other 'badass' content) in it and that's cool, it was developed by (big developer name) so it's gotta be good!
There is something else that increases chances of a game getting attention, and that's multiplayer capabilities. If it's fun for them, and they want me to play with them, then I'll check it out, because John said he'll be on waiting to see me, and we can team up!
So, where's the best seperation of industry and indy development? Industry makes games to make money, indies' make games they themselves would play.
So spread the word - An indie developer near you could be making the next big thing, so look out for them!
- Christopher "Ronixus" Dapo
07/18/2004 (11:35 am)
Quote:Is it because the general public is "stupid"? I think so.
Not at all. There are many factors:
1) It's there. That's the best there is, even if it's rehashed, it's still better than yesterdays news, but not quite, and when it's a choice of trying something new or something that just enhances the last (which was good), then most stick with a deal they can expect to be happy with.
2) Opinion counts, sales count more. Why are games rehashed? Because the general public liked what they saw with the last, or it's been proven to be a big seller with the (x-gamer) crowd, so let's give them the same thing, but with different features. Milk it dry.
3) New? But they got SuperGame 2 out! I'll get SuperGame 2, I know how to play that...
4) New? I haven't heard of it, where did you hear about that game? I've never seen any commercials so it must not be too good.
5) I don't like NewGame X, it's not my style, it looks like (game_I_hate)... (From a RPG fanatic who don't know they're talking about a new, unique RPG)
Stupidity is usually not the case - misinformation, advertising, graphics quality, ratings, hype, genre-specifics, price, and past experiences, though, usually are. Relation is a key ingredient because people will always go with what they know or can relate with before they look out the window to experience something new. In fact, this is part of marketing strategy for almost any product.
Try getting people who don't care for Pac-Man to play Pac-Man Vs. and see how far you get. Most people, after they've played it, like it, but until then it's alien to them. How many 'aliens' do you let in your door?
So, what sells then? Hype and fancy things you can see and hear! Advertising. Word of mouth works too, but it's usually alot slower. Special content - CoolBand's music is in it, it comes with the classic (retro game), it has (M rating or other 'badass' content) in it and that's cool, it was developed by (big developer name) so it's gotta be good!
There is something else that increases chances of a game getting attention, and that's multiplayer capabilities. If it's fun for them, and they want me to play with them, then I'll check it out, because John said he'll be on waiting to see me, and we can team up!
So, where's the best seperation of industry and indy development? Industry makes games to make money, indies' make games they themselves would play.
So spread the word - An indie developer near you could be making the next big thing, so look out for them!
- Christopher "Ronixus" Dapo
Josh Mattila
It is just a bunch of clone games that have been remade and refined a hundred times. Something needs to be done about it, and I wouldn't mind completely demolishing the "publisher" element in the process.